Political Animal talks Religion...

Here's what I jumped in with:

First, allow me to point out that while the Nazis were a political party, Hitler relied a great deal on the Christian beliefs of the Germans to advance his ideas,

Any set of beliefs can be used to manipulate most people. It doesn't matter what they believe, but rather how and why they believe it. There are three basic levels of moral and intellectual functioning. The first is simply reward and punishment; the second, a literal belief in codified rules, like scripture, the law, or any other code presented by some source believed to have authority; and finally, there is a self-determined level that incorporates empiricism, abstract reasoning and critical thinking. Any of the three approaches can be employed by members of any faith or group.

The problem is that people get stuck in that middle, literal range in early adolescence and never outgrow it. In order to prove that they are "correct" they compulsively define anyone who differs from their code as "other", who must be converted, assimilated, rejected or destroyed. If the code dictates that the "other' must be stoned or burned or beheaded, then followers of the code have to do that to be "correct", and if one is not correct, then one is subject to being stoned or burned or beheaded.... It's a clever use of circular reasoning that works well if your goal is to create a large group of obedient followers. It only works if it is absolute - the minute relativism/doubt/openness to a new idea enters, the system is threatened. People who are open to new ideas, who have no stake in being "correct", are hard to control, so the "code" is designed to discourage tolerance.

I'm a deeply religious person, but I am able to consider that I might be wrong. I also feel no risk in being wrong, and I have no vested interest in changing anyone else's mind about their own "code". Because of that, I don't believe that religion is bad.

Secularism rarely is really secular. Religiosity is an element of the human personality, so that the most objective standard can be misused in a "religious" way. This is where we get, for example, the Secular Humanist who loathes religion. If one functions by pure empiricism, there would be no opposition to anothers adherence to faith.

Now, we are all caught in the clash between two patriarchal systems of thought, both of which are identified with draconian systems of punishment for the Infidel/Sinner. The Islamofascist feels justified in killing innocent members of a society they have defined as corrupt. The Christo-fascist (Who call themselves "Christian" though their beliefs are strictly Old Testament Judaic law having nothing to do with the actual teachings of Jesus of Nazareth) has a mandate directly from the "word of God" - to prepare the end of the world. Environmental laws are unnecessary because, as Bush has said, "We'll all be dead." They are so passionately life oriented that they will murder a doctor, or a woman, or a criminal to prove it.

The Enlightenment of the 18th Century produced two delightful revolutions, one of which resulted eventually in our Constitution. Having seen the results of abuses of power, and wanting the freedom to arrive at their own faith through empiricism and reason, the framers of the Declaration of Independence/Articles of Confederation/Constitution arrived at the idea of a social contract that begins with the premise that we are all equal, and we will treat each other equally and fairly no matter what our private beliefs may be. Religion, which can be severe and judgemental, is to be separate from matters of state so that faith does not become a limit or test of one's rights. The Christo-fascists that are trying to control our government are bent on destroying that protection, and good people are supporting them because no one-not the "free" press, or their political opponents- will stand up and call it fascism.

For my part, I am more afraid of the Christo-fascists than the Islamo-fascists. All of these posts about whether religion is "good" or "bad" miss the point. Eventually, we will each know what happens when we die, so that argument is moot. But Right HERE, Right NOW we have a President who thinks that "God" tells him to overthrow foreign regimes; who ignores the decisions of the Supreme Court that tell him he must follow Constitutional and international law; who so subverts science that 4000 Scientists have officially spoken out against him; who wants to establish a theocracy and write bigotry into the constitution; and has threatened to use nuclear weapons pre-emptively and consults with Apocalyptic Christian cults in developing his foreign policy about Israel. I don't want a guy who thinks Jesus is coming back having access to NUKES.

Stop the Religious debate and learn about FASCISM!